Nice! As others have said this is a much easier process on Large format as you can just load the paper straight into the holders. I shoot 8x10 and 16x20 paper negatives and love the results in produces.
If you use Multigrade paper , try to use a yellow 2 or 3 filter for black and white film . For a lower contrast on a print grade 0 or 00 you have to use also a yellow filter . You can also use the Ilford Multigrade filter set to get the high contrast down with filter 0,5 , 0 or 00 . The filters work in de darkroom , so they will work in the "lightroom" to I think . But the Multigrade filters have to be very clean .
I used a lot of paper negatives with my 4x5 cameras. You can buy them very cheaply (compared to film) 100 sheets of paper cut to size and good luck with using them all, they last for ever - it's great for learning 4x5 movement techniques. 4x5 is more convenient than medium format - you can take loaded film holders like normal film and also load new in the field. I was also using Jobo developing tank for paper prints or films - so there was no need for darkroom with safelight.
This is exactly what I want to do with my now useless Land 195 camera and a Burke & James 5x7 I was gifted. I’m thinking of trying to find lower contrast paper…Good results from your scans!
If you use Harman Direct Positive paper, you'll get a positive image after this same exact process. It's slower than Multigrade though, and you can only use red safelight, not the amber that works with most photo papers. No need to scan and invert, contact print, or rephotograph to get a final print. BTW, I have an Instax back (LomoGraflok) for my 4x5 cameras (1940 Speed Graphic, mid-1950s Graphic View II) that uses Instax Wide in either color or B&W -- and since Instax exposes through the back of the print, no mirror image! Much cheaper than actual Polaroid, and no fuss. There are Instax backs for most of the removable back medium format SLRs as well, and a lot of folks hack the print feed mechanism out of the cheap Instax cameras to mount on whatever camera needs an instant back.
Very interesting process. Obviously a pretty lengthy process, but I can see that being enjoyable for folks who want to get a little more hands on! Probably also gives a lot more control over how the images come out!
it's still light sensitive after the stop bath, but the exposed silver is washed away by the fixer. Still you might get some yellowing or pink tint by putting the light on too early.
Good system!!! You can also do the same routine with "Lith Film or Graphic Arts Film". To reduce the narural high contrast of said films you can develop with highly diluted developers for negatives (try 1+4 to 1+8 dilutions to suit your needs). ISO for these films is ISO 2.0 or less. You can boost these values using "Latensification", exposing the undeveloped film to the vapours of a mercury blob, this allows to reach ISO 20. Also when doing the contact positives try placing the table lamp farther to allow for longer and more controllable times, this may save under/over exposed negatives. Good luck!!!
The Mamiya 7 is like the worst medium format camera to make paper negs with, but congrats on making it work! Have you thought of pre-flashing the paper to reduce contrast and improve dynamic range? It works wonders! And it also improves sensitivity, after pre-flashing I can meter at ISO 12 :)
As you have demonstrated, they're not at all a requirement, but if you have an enlarger you're much better off using it (plus filters) to make positives.
There's also Harman direct positive paper. I've cut that up, thrown it in my Rollei and made images. Some are spooky and some are quite nice. Alot faster and less involved too.
Try experimenting with film developer for a less contrasty image, also, try buying bigger sheets of photo-paper, cutting the longest edge to the 120 film width then roll it into a 120 spool. Obviously, you will need to completely black out any 120 number view ports you might have on the camera back.
I was thinking the same thing, considering the prices for 120 medium format film at the moment, using photo paper could probably make a tremendous cost difference! Also, you could maybe use old backing paper and just tape it where the film used to be. That way you could pre-roll several film spools at once, and just use it like you would normal film, including the numbers on the back. Alltough I'm not quite sure if that would work perfectly because obviously theres no normal photo paper that long, so you'd have to glue severeal pieces together and depending on how thick the paper is, it might be a bit difficult
@@joshuam7702 You can buy photo paper in rolls. Some are several hundred feet long. You would then just cut those down to the width and height you need
I've tried more hardcore version of this process - shot on cyanotype paper. The exposures were several hours long minimum and photos came out even more contrasty
Interesting process, but why not just shoot a roll of film, process it and make a contact sheet? Same size, same amount of work, better end result, and more pictures can be taken during an outing.
Can't you reversal process the paper? As I recall, you use regular develop and stop bath, then instead of fixer, it goes into a bleach which dissolves metallic silver. You then re-expose to light, then re-develop. and fix. I think the coin operated photo machines did this.
There are various processes for directly developing the positive image without going thru the internegative step you describe. A search should return vsrious videos of folks doing this.
Hello, dear friend, you can take a positive photo with these papers, most photographic papers have the ability to appear in the reversal method. They just need to be developed first, then bleached, exposed to light, and developed again to record a positive image😉
This seems like a really interesting process, however another issue would probably be that you can only take one photo, i.e. you need complete darkness to replace the photo paper in the camera, which isn't the easiest to find while out. just woke up, so, sorry if what I said doesn't make sense hahaha
Love this... Bucket list guaranteed. Could it be possible to use scotch tape to tape them and *roll* it into a long 120 format film style Bonus, remove paper to get some cinestill vibes... Just saying. Love from Nigeria.
Having lived through the years of 35mm negative photography, I can assure you that I don't miss enlargers one bit. Enlargers ruined sharpness and contrast. The amount of effort you have done here would have been better spent making large format B&W film negatives and then making contact prints. Oh, and skip ferrotyping too, unless someone has a less frustrating way to dry a print.
1. What photography paper did you use? 2. What developer kit is best for it? 3. Should I heat up the chemicals? 4. What ISO should I put it at because it looked like you put it at 400 on your camera.
1. Any b&w photo paper is good (you can also do it with colour photo paper, but that gives you the usual troubles), I use Ilford Multigrade 2. the one which is recommended with the paper you choose 3. no, b&w chemicals are usually fine with room temperature, 4. ISO 5 or 6 is usually the sensitivity of b&w paper. Bayliss metered with an external meter, which makes the ISO set on the camera irrelevant (you shoot manual)
PRUEBA FOTOGRAFIANDO EL NEGATIVO COMO SI FUERA UNA REPRODUCCIÓN Y LUEGO ME COMENTAS SI MEJORA LA CALIDAD DEL POSITIVO. SI ES ASÍ LEVANTA UN NUEVO VIDEO. SALUDOS.
World's cheapest darkroom - 1943 - from the back ads in popular mechanics. Horrible de-evolution. How depressing. You should buy the positive paper, medium contrast (or variable and find some filters) - probably satin - and use an old Graflex press camera - you can at least figure out how to load multiple magazines - they're quite cheap and you should have wonderful results. At least you'll be on top of the heap - for 1923. As for me - I'm going to go for a digital back for that Graflex. Hopefully monochrome and less than the $2500 I saw recently. That would be great fun - truest monochrome possible. I don't know that I'll ever shoot ektachrome again (160-1600 ASA slide film) but there's really nothing like it. It's an issue!
Nice! As others have said this is a much easier process on Large format as you can just load the paper straight into the holders. I shoot 8x10 and 16x20 paper negatives and love the results in produces.
If you use Multigrade paper , try to use a yellow 2 or 3 filter for black and white film . For a lower contrast on a print grade 0 or 00 you have to use also a yellow filter . You can also use the Ilford Multigrade filter set to get the high contrast down with filter 0,5 , 0 or 00 . The filters work in de darkroom , so they will work in the "lightroom" to I think . But the Multigrade filters have to be very clean .
I'll try that, thank-you!
I used a lot of paper negatives with my 4x5 cameras. You can buy them very cheaply (compared to film) 100 sheets of paper cut to size and good luck with using them all, they last for ever - it's great for learning 4x5 movement techniques. 4x5 is more convenient than medium format - you can take loaded film holders like normal film and also load new in the field. I was also using Jobo developing tank for paper prints or films - so there was no need for darkroom with safelight.
This is exactly what I want to do with my now useless Land 195 camera and a Burke & James 5x7 I was gifted. I’m thinking of trying to find lower contrast paper…Good results from your scans!
Ah good luck - you might be able to get lower contrast with just the right multigrade filter in front of the lens
That would work, too! Just worried about light loss at this point given the ISO 3-5, lol.
If you use Harman Direct Positive paper, you'll get a positive image after this same exact process. It's slower than Multigrade though, and you can only use red safelight, not the amber that works with most photo papers.
No need to scan and invert, contact print, or rephotograph to get a final print.
BTW, I have an Instax back (LomoGraflok) for my 4x5 cameras (1940 Speed Graphic, mid-1950s Graphic View II) that uses Instax Wide in either color or B&W -- and since Instax exposes through the back of the print, no mirror image! Much cheaper than actual Polaroid, and no fuss. There are Instax backs for most of the removable back medium format SLRs as well, and a lot of folks hack the print feed mechanism out of the cheap Instax cameras to mount on whatever camera needs an instant back.
Very interesting process. Obviously a pretty lengthy process, but I can see that being enjoyable for folks who want to get a little more hands on! Probably also gives a lot more control over how the images come out!
it's still light sensitive after the stop bath, but the exposed silver is washed away by the fixer. Still you might get some yellowing or pink tint by putting the light on too early.
Ah I always assumed it wasn't light sensitive after the stop bath, thanks
Good system!!! You can also do the same routine with "Lith Film or Graphic Arts Film".
To reduce the narural high contrast of said films you can develop with highly diluted developers for negatives (try 1+4 to 1+8 dilutions to suit your needs).
ISO for these films is ISO 2.0 or less. You can boost these values using "Latensification", exposing the undeveloped film to the vapours of a mercury blob, this allows to reach ISO 20. Also when doing the contact positives try placing the table lamp farther to allow for longer and more controllable times, this may save under/over exposed negatives.
Good luck!!!
The Mamiya 7 is like the worst medium format camera to make paper negs with, but congrats on making it work! Have you thought of pre-flashing the paper to reduce contrast and improve dynamic range? It works wonders! And it also improves sensitivity, after pre-flashing I can meter at ISO 12 :)
What a fun innnovative way of playing with your camera and ingenious to create a positive in this way.
As you have demonstrated, they're not at all a requirement, but if you have an enlarger you're much better off using it (plus filters) to make positives.
There's also Harman direct positive paper. I've cut that up, thrown it in my Rollei and made images. Some are spooky and some are quite nice. Alot faster and less involved too.
Try experimenting with film developer for a less contrasty image, also, try buying bigger sheets of photo-paper, cutting the longest edge to the 120 film width then roll it into a 120 spool. Obviously, you will need to completely black out any 120 number view ports you might have on the camera back.
I was thinking the same thing, considering the prices for 120 medium format film at the moment, using photo paper could probably make a tremendous cost difference! Also, you could maybe use old backing paper and just tape it where the film used to be. That way you could pre-roll several film spools at once, and just use it like you would normal film, including the numbers on the back. Alltough I'm not quite sure if that would work perfectly because obviously theres no normal photo paper that long, so you'd have to glue severeal pieces together and depending on how thick the paper is, it might be a bit difficult
@@joshuam7702 You can buy photo paper in rolls. Some are several hundred feet long. You would then just cut those down to the width and height you need
Very cool and unique process!
Thank-you!
Very ingenious, and good to know for when my darkroom is finished! Plastering/patching of the walls, then painting need to be finished.
Good job!
I've tried more hardcore version of this process - shot on cyanotype paper. The exposures were several hours long minimum and photos came out even more contrasty
I do the same with an old Kodak Click. I say I go photographing and it is setting up the camera and relax......
I do this with cyanotype. Exposure times are slightly longer (about 8 hours in full sun :( ).
Interesting, quite a lot of work!
Very nice! Can strips of photo paper be wound on the spools?
It might be possible - I think the paper could be too inflexible/thick though
I shoot a rb67 and have a bunch of film backs. Gonna try this
Excellent Process and idea!!!
Great video - will try one day 😊
Thanks for watching!
Interesting process, but why not just shoot a roll of film, process it and make a contact sheet? Same size, same amount of work, better end result, and more pictures can be taken during an outing.
yes, might try that next 👍
But where’s the adventure in that!?
Can't you reversal process the paper? As I recall, you use regular develop and stop bath, then instead of fixer, it goes into a bleach which dissolves metallic silver. You then re-expose to light, then re-develop. and fix. I think the coin operated photo machines did this.
There are various processes for directly developing the positive image without going thru the internegative step you describe. A search should return vsrious videos of folks doing this.
Interesting, but why would you do this? Just use film and make a contact sheet! Nice video sort of like a Monty Python show!
Hello, dear friend, you can take a positive photo with these papers, most photographic papers have the ability to appear in the reversal method.
They just need to be developed first, then bleached, exposed to light, and developed again to record a positive image😉
This seems like a really interesting process, however another issue would probably be that you can only take one photo, i.e. you need complete darkness to replace the photo paper in the camera, which isn't the easiest to find while out. just woke up, so, sorry if what I said doesn't make sense hahaha
Liked n subscribed. May I ask what chemicals and mix you were using please. Im so keen to try this my friend. Great video
Ilford multigrade developer and Ilford rapid fixer
This is epic! I need to try this
very good, I'm passionate about photography
You ca use reversal process for example that one intended for Agfa Scala but on paper to get direct positive. No contact printing.
Love this... Bucket list guaranteed.
Could it be possible to use scotch tape to tape them and *roll* it into a long 120 format film style
Bonus, remove paper to get some cinestill vibes... Just saying.
Love from Nigeria.
Try giving the negative paper a few seconds of pre-flash [not using your desk lamp!]. Brings down the contrast.
I'll try that, thanks!
@@baylissprojects Only a weakish light source though, say 10w incandescent from about .5m
Have you considered doing the same thing but with cyanotype?
Interesting idea
Having lived through the years of 35mm negative photography, I can assure you that I don't miss enlargers one bit. Enlargers ruined sharpness and contrast. The amount of effort you have done here would have been better spent making large format B&W film negatives and then making contact prints. Oh, and skip ferrotyping too, unless someone has a less frustrating way to dry a print.
Stellar
do you need to keep the paper in total darkness till you develop it?
Yes, apart from a safelight
wtf this was awesome
1. What photography paper did you use? 2. What developer kit is best for it? 3. Should I heat up the chemicals? 4. What ISO should I put it at because it looked like you put it at 400 on your camera.
1. Any b&w photo paper is good (you can also do it with colour photo paper, but that gives you the usual troubles), I use Ilford Multigrade 2. the one which is recommended with the paper you choose 3. no, b&w chemicals are usually fine with room temperature, 4. ISO 5 or 6 is usually the sensitivity of b&w paper. Bayliss metered with an external meter, which makes the ISO set on the camera irrelevant (you shoot manual)
@@samgerers Thank you so much this is really helpful!
👍👍👍
I'm wondering if you couldn't just develop, bleach, wash, light, develop and fix regular photo paper to get a direct positive
it looks like you set the camera for 4 second exposure rather than 1/4 second for the river shot, which would be why its over exposed
Wait this sounds smart can you do it with a normal 35 mm film camera?
yes, that should work well
PRUEBA FOTOGRAFIANDO EL NEGATIVO COMO SI FUERA UNA REPRODUCCIÓN Y LUEGO ME COMENTAS SI MEJORA LA CALIDAD DEL POSITIVO. SI ES ASÍ LEVANTA UN NUEVO VIDEO. SALUDOS.
Il existe aussi du papier positif direct comme le Ilford Harman DPP.
Ah yes I have seen that - I will try it eventually
Lol, there's probably like 8 people who have watched this who have a Mamiya 7.
World's cheapest darkroom - 1943 - from the back ads in popular mechanics. Horrible de-evolution. How depressing.
You should buy the positive paper, medium contrast (or variable and find some filters) - probably satin - and use an old Graflex press camera - you can at least figure out how to load multiple magazines - they're quite cheap and you should have wonderful results. At least you'll be on top of the heap - for 1923. As for me - I'm going to go for a digital back for that Graflex. Hopefully monochrome and less than the $2500 I saw recently. That would be great fun - truest monochrome possible. I don't know that I'll ever shoot ektachrome again (160-1600 ASA slide film) but there's really nothing like it. It's an issue!